Monero’s approach to miner incentives, using tail emission, prioritizes predictable, ongoing rewards to maintain chain security, which is a pragmatic solution but comes at the cost of permanent, protocol-level dilution for all holders. It’s a valid technical path, especially for a privacy-focused coin, but shouldn’t be portrayed as “more mature” simply because it avoids relying on demand for blockspace and organically emergent fee markets.

Bitcoin’s model, while demanding more from its users and market dynamics, anchors security in a combination of finite supply and the willingness of participants to pay for settlement, not in endless inflation. This challenges the ecosystem to innovate around transaction batching, scaling, and efficiency, ensuring that miners are still incentivized as the block subsidy declines.

It’s not a question of maturity versus immaturity, but of different tradeoffs: Monero chooses steady dilution for predictable security, Bitcoin chooses absolute scarcity and tests whether transparent fees and technological ingenuity can secure the chain. Downplaying the technical rigor of one approach or the economic principles of the other misses the point; both are serious experiments in decentralized security, and each deserves honest discourse, not cheap shots.